Van Houten v. Pritchard
315 Ark. 688, 870 S.W.2d 377, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 70 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a domestic animal, such as a cat, that is not known to have dangerous propensities and is not governed by a leash law, has no general duty under a theory of ordinary negligence to restrain the animal or prevent it from running at large.
Facts:
- Peter Van Houten owned a cat for three years, during which time it had never shown a disposition toward biting or being abnormally dangerous.
- Van Houten customarily allowed the cat to run at large.
- On several occasions, Van Houten's cat had entered the garage of his neighbor, Rick Pritchard, and urinated or 'sprayed'.
- On March 21, 1992, the cat once again entered Pritchard's garage and urinated.
- As Pritchard attempted to remove the cat from his garage, the cat bit him on his right index finger.
- The bite caused severe injuries to Pritchard, requiring four surgeries and resulting in significant medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Rick Pritchard sued Peter Van Houten in an Arkansas trial court.
- The complaint alleged two counts against Van Houten: strict liability and ordinary negligence.
- At trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of Van Houten on the strict liability count.
- The ordinary negligence count was submitted to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pritchard, awarding him $80,000 in damages.
- Van Houten, as appellant, appealed the judgment on the negligence verdict to the Supreme Court of Arkansas; Pritchard was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner of a domestic cat, which is not known to be abnormally dangerous, have a duty of ordinary care to prevent the cat from running at large and causing harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert H. Dudley
No, an owner of a domestic cat not known to be dangerous does not have a duty of ordinary care to prevent it from running at large. The court reasoned that under common law, owners of certain domestic animals like cats and dogs are privileged to allow them to run at large because they are traditionally regarded as unlikely to do substantial harm. A duty to restrain an animal only arises under a theory of ordinary negligence if it is a large animal likely to cause damage (e.g., livestock), if there is a violation of a statute like a leash law, or under a strict liability theory if the owner knows of the animal's dangerous propensities. Since the trial court's directed verdict on strict liability established as the law of the case that Van Houten did not know the cat had a propensity to injure, and no leash law was violated, Van Houten had no duty to confine the cat. Without a duty, there can be no breach and therefore no negligence.
Dissenting - Steele Hays
Yes, an owner of a domestic cat can be found liable for failing to exercise ordinary care to control the animal under particular circumstances. The dissent argues that the proper standard is whether the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, not simply whether the animal had known vicious propensities. There was substantial evidence of negligence: Van Houten knew his tomcat could become 'hostile,' knew it was a nuisance to his neighbor, left it unattended for a weekend, failed to vaccinate it, and may have violated a subdivision covenant requiring pets to be leashed. These circumstances created a foreseeable risk of harm, and a jury could reasonably find that Van Houten's failure to restrain the cat was a breach of his duty of ordinary care.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional common law rule that insulates owners of common domestic pets, like cats, from general negligence liability for harms caused while the animals are at large. It sharply distinguishes these pets from livestock or animals with known vicious tendencies, for which a duty of care is more readily found. The ruling places a high burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to prove either a violation of a specific statute or that the owner had prior knowledge of the pet's dangerous nature. By rejecting a general duty of care, the court limits the expansion of negligence liability and affirms that the risk of unforeseen harm from such animals falls upon the public rather than the owner.
